Quantcast

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas


Battle of the GTAs

We've rated the clones - now let's see how the originals stack up against each other

Words: Mikel Reparaz, GamesRadar US

Grand Theft Auto Advance
2004 | Game Boy Advance

The setup: Another top-down, 2D take on GTA, this portable edition tells the story of a couple of petty criminals who want to quit the life and escape the third-world hell-hole that is Liberty City. Of course, during the fateful One Last Job, one of them gets killed, and it's up to the other one to figure out who did it before he quits Liberty for good.

The rides: A bunch of generic-looking 2D cars, buses and trucks, all of which handle reasonably well.

The criminal: Some guy named Mike who wants to avenge his murdered pal Vinnie. Aside from the usual revenge-seeker personality, there doesn't seem to be all that much to him.

The town: Liberty City, two-dimensional once again but this time based more or less on GTAIII's map.

The music: Forgettable 16-bit techno, jazz and rock arrangements with garbled vocal samples. Once again, the music is tied to the car you're driving, rather than to specific radio stations.

The violence: Bloody, but relatively tame. The characters are tiny and low-res, so it's sometimes hard to tell what's going on, but when fights break out it's easy to bust out the guns and open fire. We especially like playing around with the flamethrower and shotgun, just for their raw destructive capabilities.

Why it's the best: It was the first GTA made specifically for a handheld system, and in the days before Liberty City Stories, it was the best way to get your GTA fix while out of the house.

Why it isn't: Frankly, it sucks balls. The story is flat and the characters are uninteresting, and the graphics and raw action are actually less interesting than the original GTA's. Plus, it's not easy to find your way around when Liberty City's just one flat, misshapen block after another.

Does it hold up? No. But if you absolutely have to play a portable GTA and you don't own a PSP, then still no.


 
2 Comments
Order Comments: Newest First | Oldest First
A.J_Smiles  - 1 year 4 months ago 
Gang, I was rooting for Vice City. I mean San Andreas is obviously better, but VC was my first GTA game ever and I love it
JosefMotley  - 25 days 14 hours ago 
Personally I think there should have been a "no winners" result. Not because I hate GTA. but because i loved it so much and have been continually disappointed by the series since vice city. obviously GTA3 is pretty much unplayable now and has no in-game map and ridiculous missions. by comparison, when vice city came out it felt like the franchise had been suddenly sold to nintendo - it was actually fair and fun for the first time. sadly they messed vice city up not with the game itself but with its painfully bugged, rushed and ultimately intensely overrated sequel san andreas. though san andreas was by almost all areas the worse game, the fact it finally introduced climbing meant it ruined vice city. san andreas is terrible plotwise in comparison and while it has some good missions, has far too many bad ones i never want to replay again. and now every time i try and play vice city again i'm just frustrated that you can't climb (couldn't care less about swimming, it was actually less annoying just dying in vice city, in san andreas falling in the usually led to deliberately drowning yourself instantly anyway, it was either that or swim round the coastline of somewhere for hours trying to find something you could climb up... AND THEY HAD LADDERS IN THAT GAME THAT WERE JUST FOR SHOW AND YOU COULDN'T CLIMB BUT STUCK OUT OF THE WATER TEMPTINGLY NONETHELESS. HOW DARE THEY) anyway so san andreas by introducing ONE good new feature managed to run the entire back catalogue of the series into the ground for good.

question is: can you climb in vice city stories? if so, that's the only decent GTA left. i need to play it again and properly, not drunk in a roomful of people taking it in turns this time....
Related Games